Talk:Saini/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Landholdings

I have just removed a statement about landholdings from the article. It is undue weight to place this in the lead section. The statement is in any case flawed because the quote refers to a specific area and a specific subgroup of Saini. I am also unsure of how significant the point may be and would like to do some reading round to ensure that it is not just puffery. - Sitush (talk) 08:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The area, by the way, is Punjab. It is not even all of the area referred to in the title of the book. Furthermore, that mention of Saini appears to be the sole use of the word in the entire book - and it is not used plurally either. It all seems to me to be a little flimsy, although I accept that it is based on some form of unspecified revenue records made at some unspecified time. The author is Brij Pal Singh, who is a retired professor, not Vora. I do not question Singh's authority but I'll read the entire chapter anyway. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My request to IP 76.125.76.20 : Please dont use this kind of language. I can well understand Punjabi language. And I had well understood what you said to Sitush. We know that we are right, but this is not the way to prove ourself right. I can understand you may be hurted by Sitush editing, even me also. But please control your words and emotional feelings here. ThanksSalariaRajput (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That IP was already indefinitely banned from editing this talk page and the article, under the terms of general sanctions. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, please block me. Also answer the question that why did you not own the responsibility that you made the changes in the paragraph Mali identifing as Sainis in feb, 2012 to create more confusion. And you are no white, I believe you are an Indian. Where do your tall claims go, that you did not make the change and you should not be blamed. Sitush Da Scholar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 23:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Gahlot

I may have asked this before - can anyone get hold of a copy of Gahlot, pages 106-110. It is only available to me in snippet view here. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I did a few minutes ago, but it will take a week before it gets here...--Chiema (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2012 --99.233.29.22 (talk) 03:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)(UTC)

Great, thanks. I think that Wikipedia will likely still be around in a week's time ;) - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I have checked the entire source (pp 106-107) . It very cleary and explicitly states that both Sainis and Rajput Malis have decended from the Rajput warriors who lost battles to Muslim rulers. Authors also cite a bardic record, oral traditions and analysis of clan names to state the point, and further add that out of the two communities with common origin from Rajputs, (i.e Rajput Malis and Sainis), the latter moved to Punjab and continued to maintain their Rajput character. They do not state this as a "claïm" as the article incorrectly cites at present. They positively and unambiguously identify them as Rajputs. Since this a reference which is even used by Encyclopedia Britannica on many history related topics, there is no room here to doubt its reliability or debate its academic acceptance. The author is considered a renowned authority on the history of Rajasthan. Not that it matters, but the one of the authors is himself a Sisodia Rajput, unrelated with Sainis of Punjab, and cannot be assumed to have any interest in promoting Sainis unduly. Further he is very well cited in academic publications. Google Scholar returns about 70 references about him which incudes citations to his work "Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan". This is very high-grade reference.--History Sleuth (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Not good enough, sorry. Gahlot is one opinion, and there appear to be several. I'd still like to see the thing for myself but even then it is unlikely that the article could be changed substantially. Unless your argument is that everyone else who differs from Gahlot is a fringe theorist. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the article does not need to change substantially. I did not make that argument. All I am saying is that Gahlot has been quoted incorrectly. He is explicit in positively identifying Sainis as Rajputs, and Rajput Malis to have atleast originated from Rajputs who fought along with Prithviraj Chauhan. Whether or not other authors are fringe is a different matter but Gahlot is a mainstream peer-reviewed academic also used by Encylopedia Britannica as a reference (same for the cited source "Castes and Tribes of Rajasthan") . He simply cannot be considered fringe, no matter how one tries to argue against it. While other authors can be cited, Gahlot needs to be cited accurately, which, I am afraid, the current version of the article does not. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 00:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I keep asking whether someone can provide a copy of the relevant bits but my requests appear to fall on deaf ears. Since I cannot see the Gahlot source, I can neither agree nor disagree with your opinion. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The preceding text of the reference has been quoted accurately in Origin of Sainis section. However, I also have the PDF of both the pages but I do not know how to upload it on wikipedia. If you give me your email, I can email it to you. Thanks.--History Sleuth (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have also checked the source in the local library. It does not say Sainis "claim" to be Rajputs. It says they actually are Rajputs who fought along with Prithvi Raj Chauhan. I think this part can be suitably amended as the source is reliable and vety clear. The current "claim only" statement is inaccurate. It should say that "according to Gahlot and Banshidhar Sainis are the descendants of Rajput warriors who fought along with Prithvi Raj Chauhan " . — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.17.0.34|108.17.0.34](talk) 12:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If some sources say that they are/were and others say otherwise, "claim" is a valid term. Look, the entire article is a mess and that is in large part because of poor sourcing, synthesis and attempts to make connections that are quite simply not verified. A similar situation arises with the Yadav/Yadava etc articles, but this one is worse. It pretty much needs a complete rewrite and I suspect that will happen before too long. As an aid to that rewrite, it would be nice to see the Gahlot source in full. - Sitush (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

do you check every source on Wikipedia in full ? The editor above had offered to send you the pages but you gave no response . It looks like you have something personal against this article that you would place unreasonable demands . Is this not tendentious editing? Exact quote has been given , yet you would edit war on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.233 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

There was no means to email the editor & I was not going to provide my email address here. I also wanted rather more than two pages because context is everything with this sort of stuff - Chiema had offered this but did not return. There have been far too many good faith misrepresentations of sources and when we have a situation where many Rajputs have seemingly denied recognition of Saini Rajput status (as evidenced in wars at other articles), well, alarm bells begin to ring.

In any event, the wording is poor and it will be reverted once more: someone was bold in inserting the thing, I reverted and we should now discuss. - Sitush (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid your "many Rajputs" comment has no validity . You are not basing it on any scholarly source but on the basis of rants of people like Rajput666 who most likely belongs to some rival tribe and who has shown enough evidence of vendetta. Personal opinions of the random editors do not count anything. No source has directly denied the claim. If any has done, those sources can be cited as well but you simply cannot remove or question those that do directly confirm the accuracy of the claim. That editor Cheimo did not post anything because he did not find what he expected to find in that source. Lastly , now even two pages are not enough. You want the entire book to be posted in Wikipedia? !? Somebody needs to report you for causing unnecessary obstructions and discouraging well meaning editors from participation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.198.9.232 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, this page is for discussing the improvement of the article. Please comment on the content, not on the contributor. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I had asked for a few pages, not the entire book. One person offered to get that range, another said they had the two pages that were cited. One of the reasons why this article was protected was precisely because of the warring involving a range of people who did not accept the Rajput claims. I find it odd that this article is suddenly becoming subject to debate almost immediately that the protection period has ended and that there appear to be some closely related anons moving around. Are all these IP addresses a single person or multiple people? Can anyone else see the extent to which this article is constructed as a house of cards?

I am not always correct but I've gained a fair experience of how caste-related articles work here on Wikipedia and, believe me, this one has a certain "smell" about it. I will try to devote more time to it but somehow I doubt that the outcome will meet with approval. So be it. - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to get it. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is that chapter. [1] JanetteDoe (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, JanetteDoe.

However respected Gahlot etc may be as academics, this is not a reliable source. For example, from the preface: "The sources of information which [the authors] have banked upon heavily are census reports, gazetteers, traditions, legends and information elicited from knowledgeable informants." It also says that there will be a revised edition due to information gaps and "apologise for numerous printing errors in the book which remained uncorrected trough printer's inadvertance and their own prolonged stay out of station when the book was in the press."

In the specific chapter, they are citing the awful H. H. Risley for a physical description (p. 102), and despite describing James Tod as "perfunctory" in the preface, they cite him on multiple occasions )eg: pp., 102. 104). In fact, it seems likely that they are quoting Tod in the specific text that people have been promoting here, although the punctuation and dreadful lack of precision in attributions makes it difficult to be certain. Page 106 appears to say that the Mahur Malis were also known as Sainis and both there and on p. 107 there appears to be a distinction made between them and the Rajput Malis.

As far as I am concerned, the "claim" stands because it is impossible to determine who is saying what here. If thi is the usual standard for Gahlot then, frankly, he does not deserve his academic eminence. However, he has acknowledged many of the problems in the preface. - Sitush (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

There you go again. Your comments only qualify as wp:Or and that too faulty one. This is a source considered reliable and usable one by Encyclopedia Brittanica. The Mahur Malis are a different community of Rajasthan who adopted Saini identity in 1931. He is clear that Sainis of Punjab are descended from Rajputs and who maintained their Rajput character. Trevaskis had said the same. Genetic studies published in a reputed American journal corroborate the view. For an unbiased neutral editor these would be sufficient evidence. Comments like "he does not deserve the academic eminence" go way beyond the brief and authority of a Wikipedia editor. Wikipedia editors are not authorized to dissect and question the sources once their reliability is established which in this case is clearly the case. Any editor who considers his own personal opinion to disqualify a source considered reliable and usable by world's most reputed encyclopedia would naturally invite skepticism and suspicion of lack of neutrality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.29.22 (talk) 03:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, Tod' s limitations were critiqued a long time ago but he is not considered a source totally discredited as Sitush is insinuating. He is the original and the only source of Rajput historiography. All the sources of Rajput history were originally collected and compiled by him. He still continues to be cited in history journals about Rajput history as an important opinion . Not all of his work is faulty and great amount of his work is still usable in it's own right. A work using Tod's work in proper context does not lose its academic legitimacy and that too on the insinuation of an amateur Wikipedia editor.

Sumedh Singh Saini

Sumedh Singh Saini is appointed as new DGP of Punjab.106.78.110.95 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

And your point is? Unless he self-identifies as a member of the Saini ethnic group, this is irrelevant. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I deal with a lot of the Indian caste/community articles and this type of issue arises frequently. As such, I made the mistake of assuming that I had previously and recently explained the reasoning here ... and it turns out that I have not.

Per WP:BLP, and more specifically WP:BLPCAT, if a person is alive then we have to be extremely careful with regard to associating things such as their ethnicity, religious beliefs, etc and thus we insist that the person has verifiably self-identified their ethnicity, belief etc. Bearing a particular last name is not an indication of anything in particular and has been rejected as verification time and again even when the person is dead.

As things stand, the policies mentioned above mean that they must self-identify as being a member of the Saini caste. An example of how things can fall apart is that there are many living people bearing the last name of "Nair" in Scotland, Canada and other countries who have absolutely no connection to the Nair caste. Equally, I could pay the UK government £37 tomorrow and be the proud possessor of the "Saini" name shortly afterwards - it is meaningless. - Sitush (talk) 01:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey Sumedh Saini wants to talk to you and wants to leyt you know whether he is Saini or not. Leave your number/contact info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Saini of Punjab as Descendants of Krishna as per The Krishna Key

Please note that a new bestseller has been published which treats Sainis of Punjab as descendants of Maharaja Shurasena and Krishna. In the very begining of chapter 47 of the book The Krishna Key the origin of Sainis of Punjab has been explained as follows:

"How so?' asked Priya. 'Krishna's grandfather was Shurasena, and some of his tribe came to be known as the Shainyas. Over several generations, the Shainyas eventually settled in the Punjab and came to be known as Sainis."

I want to add the following text under a new section heading "Origin of Sainis in The Krishna Key" :

"The origin of Sainis of Punjab has also become the topic of a popular bestseller. In the anthropological thriller The Krishna Key, the lead character of the novel, history professor Ravi Saini, belongs to Saini community of Punjab. The novel traces the origin of Sainis of Punjab from Krishna and his grandfather Shurasena, the ancient Yadava kings. The novel treats Sainis as an offshoot of royal Yadava tribe and it explains the origin of the term "Saini" from "Shainya", a term which itself is derived from Krishna's grandfather king Shurasena"

The reference is : The Krishna Key, Chapters 46-47 ,The Krishna Key , Sanghi, Ashwin, Westland Publishers 2012

The cited text above can also be verified on Google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-UiwMRwcT-kC&pg=PT133&dq=Saini+mentally+struggled+with+the+similarities+as+he+made+noteswitha+trembling&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dGQMUZ_0BunJyQGF54DICg&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

I have the entire text in paperback . The book has been widely reviewed and passes notability criterion of Wikipedia. Please comply with this editing request--Varshney2013 (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please note that this reference cannot be ignored as The Krishna Key is a very popular and widely reviewed book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varshney2013 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You're joking, right? The Krishna Key is a work of fiction. It's not ever going to be a reliable source for anything other than it's own plot, characters, etc. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Varshney is not suggesting in any way for this to be presented as an academic fact . He is asking it to be presented as the treatment of a popular folklore in a particular genre of  work which is highly notable. If this folklore were not popular, it would not become the subject matter of an international bestseller. I see no reason why this tidbid  can't be presented under a suitable heading in the context of influence of this native account on popular art. This detail is notable enough and is directly  relevant to this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.164.79.88 (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that he's not treating at as a source; my apologies for not reading carefully enough. Nonetheless, I don't believe it belongs in the article, especially not in its own section, and especially not the way phrased. The way the suggestion is phrased, it sounds like the novel is in some way authoritative, or accurate. If I was going to include it, I'd say something more like "The lead character in the novel The Krishna Key discusses a possible origin theory of the Saini's"--the details are inappropriate. But even that much is probably too much. Once we started doing that, than any time an movie, book, etc. mentioned a caste/tribal group in Indian, we'd end up adding that to the article. We generally avoid trivia (see WP:TRIVIA), and that's exactly what this is. The only way I could see justifying inclusion would be if reliable secondary sources discussed the connection. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Expounding on folklore can sometimes be useful for supporting content that is specifically about that folklore, but I think that needs to be constrained to academic sources only. I don't think there is any place whatsoever for fictional works to be used to support content in Wikipedia articles, especially not in articles where there is controversy over even the factual sources. The pronouncements of fictional characters in novels is of no value whatsoever to an encyclopedia - any author can put whatever words they like into the mouths of their characters. From a "popular culture" perspective it's WP:TRIVIA at best, and the last thing we need in caste articles right now is "pop culture" trivia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen , I am not able to agree with both of you. This is no longer WP:TRIVIA when a native tradition penetrates into popular culture. The tradition has to be attributed some power and notability in such cases. I request you to familiarize yourselves fully with Historical fiction as a class of writing before giving loaded pronouncements. Historical novel is fiction about plausible historical theories and events. The fiction part only lies in the plot of the stories. The characters and facts of the work are adapted on the basis of solid research. In any case it is not being recommened that this source be primarily quoted in support of any academic fact. What is being suggested is that the popular culture treatment of a folk history be noted in the article which directly deals with the folk history in question. This will not be the first example on Wikipedia where this has been done. I invite you to browse relevant sections on the articles on Barka Dutt in Popular Culture or more relevantly with Merovingians in pseudo-history and popular culture in the article on Merovingian Dynasty. In both of the articles similar references have been made, i.e. popular literature and cinema based on actual contemporary persons and groups. So this is no longer WP:TRIVIA but content very relevant to this article. Ashwin Sanghi does not belong to this community and is a well-known author. So conflict of interest or lack of neutrality are not the arguments that can be used here to deny inclusion of this content in the article either. --Varshney2013 (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think Wikipedia would be better off if 90% of the "in popular culture" sections were removed...but I accept that others disagree. I've removed all of the details of the theory from the section you added, but kept the issue intact. It's critical that we do not present the actual theory, though, as doing so gives undue prominence to what is nothing more than a work of fiction. It doesn't matter how well researched it is; there are, for example, plenty of science fiction writers who do good scientific research...but we don't discuss the details of the theories in the articles, instead just noting the connection between the scientific concept and the fictional work. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

If you artbitrarily suppress material directly quoted in a popular work , it also looks like a conspiracy of silence. This why I reverted your edit because there was nothing in it which was materially false, out of context, or of undue weight. I suggest you seek third party opinion on this which involves people more than yourself , Boeing or usual group of editors which have contributed to this article. You cannot change wikipedia policies just because you do not like certain content. There is nothing in that edit which unprecedented for wikipedia as already pointed out.--Varshney2013 (talk) 00:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, by deleting the following part from the edit you may have done great disservice to Wikipedia's credibility.

"The novel traces the origin of Sainis of Punjab from Krishna and his grandfather Shurasena, the ancient Yadava kings. The novel treats Sainis as an offshoot of royal Yadava tribe and it explains the origin of the term "Saini" from "Shainya", a term which itself is derived from Krishna's grandfather king Shurasena"

You are suppressing a material fact given in a popular work within its due context. I ask you you to reconsider your position. This is not about about personal "compromise" but about the policies of wikiepedia (which may have been flouted by your revert). Please re-evaluate your position.--Varshney2013 (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

How can it be a "material fact" when it's a work of *fiction*? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This page--this article--is about a group of people. Real people, in the real world. Our "service" as an encyclopedia, is to provide reliable, neutral information about that group of people. The details of a fictional theory made by a fictional person in a work of fiction (am I emphasizing this enough) are neither reliable information, nor are they neutral, nor, in the end, are they particularly relevant to the encyclopedic story of the Saini people. I am willing to accept that some people believe that the fact that work of fiction talked extensively about this theory is relevant (even if I personally disagree), but no disservice is done by not repeating what is said in a work of fiction. If people want to know more, they can read the book. Heck, it might if be acceptable to describe the theory in a little detail on the The Krishna Key article, because it might be relevant there. But here. Really? Qwyrxian (talk) 06:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Just remove the entire "Popular culture" section. For a rationale regarding their existence elsewhere, see WP:OSE. It has no merit here, being pure fiction. We have enough problems with dubious folklore/fiction in "academic" sources (eg: the Raj stuff found in many caste articles) without including outright fiction masquerading as fact. I'm not even convinced that The Krishna Key is a notable book, for which purpose mere book reviews count as little since the books are usually sent around for review by the publishers and are therefore arguably "promotional" in the scope of WP:BK - although, of course, this is really a discussion relating to the article about the book, not this one.

The Surasena/Saini/Yadav/Yadava etc origins and connections to royalty etc are moot in academic sources. We do not need fictional stuff further muddying the waters, especially when it amounts to puffery by the back door. I remember reading a book review last year where a central character was a Yadav peasant who had gone on a murderous rampage (in Bihar, I think, and probably drawing parallels with Lalu Prasad Yadav) - would we really benefit from including such stuff? It just fans the flames in the opposite direction to the one currently being discussed here ... and it adds precisely nothing to our understanding of the community. Put it another way: Varshney2013, if this section stays then do not be surprised if someone else turns up and adds a really nasty paragraph that connects the Sainis to something unspeakable. Then what will you want to happen?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I've just noticed that Sanghi refers to "out-of-the-ordinary" content being a pillar of his fictional writings, and this in an interview connected to the release of The Krishna Key. Perhaps I have misread it but WP:FRINGE, anyone?--2.219.218.79 (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

On your point about notability, actually, having a fair number of book reviews in reliable newspapers (etc.) is considered sufficient to pass WP:NBOOK. And I agree that the theory would be WP:FRINGE if it were presented as a theory, which is why I cut it (and continue to argue it must remain cut). But as a pop culture note...Varshney does have a point that we do regularly cover "pop culture" references to things in our "scholarly" articles, from Heroin#Popular culture to Hell, Michigan#Hell in popular culture to Seven deadly sins#cultural references (just 3 random disparate articles on my watchlist that I know have pop culture sections). So I don't think a mention, without the details, is unreasonable. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Boing, I never meant it a material fact in the sense you are projecting. The material fact is that the Saini tribe, along with four others, has a folk legend of origin from Krishna and Shurasena and this folk legend has become the central part of a very popular work of historical fiction. WP:FRINGE argument is totally irrelevant here because this citation is not about the folk legend actually being true in first place. The citation is about the treatment of the folk legend in a very notable work of historical fiction. It is not about the veracity of folk legend itself. This also answers Qwyrxian's comment above. WP:OSE is also not applicable because that regulation is about content which is patently false and uncitable. It cannot be applied to the content which is backed up with citations and is added after due consideration of weight and context. If Barkha Dutt has been chracterized in a popular movie, then there is suitable basis for mentioning this fact in the article about her because both the real life character and the work of art are notable in public domain. Same applies to the cases of Merovingian dynasty of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and The Da Vinci Code. --Varshney2013 (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:OSE always applies. That page simply explains that you can never say, "Well, they did this on this other page, so we should do it here." Also, please stop confusing the folk legend and The Krishna Key. We have no evidence that they are identical; we know, as you pointed out below, that the author did research, but we do not know how much he altered it from that research. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Shurasena

Shurasena has numerous transliterations, of which our article notes "also written as Surasena, Shoorsen, Shursen, Shoorsaini, Shoorseni". Aside from books that mirror Wikipedia and the unreliable Encyclopedia Indica, which plagiarises all sorts of stuff from all sorts of sources, what do we have in the way of reliable sources that support the Saini - Shurasena myth of origin? We have the pretty useless People of India, which relies on (often unattributed) verbatim lifts from Raj sources but I am struggling to find anything else at Google Books or at JSTOR, using any of the transliterated terms. In fact, there is nothing at all at JSTOR and the two or three potentially viable results at GBooks do not in fact pan out.

I've been concerned about this for some time and have conducted English language searches on several occasions. Our related articles - Surasena, Shoorsaini (redirects to Surasena Kingdom) and Shurasena - are pretty bad and, if nothing else, probably need to be merged. They do not appear reliably to support the claim made in this article and there are elements of the old Yadav/Yadava controversy among them, long discussions regarding which can be found at Talk:Yadav.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 06:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

There is an attempt to falsely manufacture a controversy here by drawing an erroneous comparison with Yadav article. Yadav is the adoptive name of Gwal community which they took in 1924 only. This group has always known as Saini and its origin has always been linjed with Mathura which was also called Surasena after Krishna's grandfather. They have never changed their name ever in known history. So your comparison of this article with Yadav article is based on false premises. Sanghi picked up this tribe for his creative work with some basis it appears. Unlike your selective quote Sanghi has comnented in rediff interview that he consulted historical research before writing his book. <span style="font-size: smaller;" Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

class="autosigned">—

Here is what Ashwin Sanghi commented if you read his rediff interview.

"Before writing the book, I referred to three volumes of research material on the city of Dwarka by Prof Rao. That led me to find out the exact time and events of the Mahabharata which were important whether co-related to Krishna's city. Since most of the ancient books were in Sanskrit, I picked up Rajagopalachari's Mahabharata which gave me a fair understanding of the events and its significance. I also ended up reading a translated version of the Harivansh, which talks about the life and times of Krishna. Then I wanted to know more about Krishna as a historic person. So I read some non-fiction works including that of N Rajaram. In about eight to nine months, I must have devoured about an excess of 50 odd books"

http://www.rediff.com/getahead/slide-show/slide-show-1-specials-interview-with-ashwin-sanghi/20121204.htm#4

This should answer some who doubt with any rational basis at all. Out of thousands of the tribes in India why does Sanghi pick only five (Saini, Varshney, Chedi, Satwat, Kurkude) for choosing his characters and folk histories? Why only these five out of tens of thousands tribes in India? Notice that he does not pick the modern "Yadav" caste which is referred above. If this had been unresearched work , Ashwin Sanghi would have fallen in the trap of believing gawala/ahir caste as Yadava. He does not fall in this popular trap and chose his source material and characters discreetly based on proper research as noted in the above quote. All of the five clans he has chosen for literary treatment had powerful and well known folk legends about origin from Yadavas predating the colonial era.--Varshney2013 (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if he spent 20 years studying and read every book in print on the subject. This is a work of fiction. The only thing that possibly merits commentary is that a notable book talked about the origin theory of the group. Should Sanghi decide to write a work of non-fiction, and should that work be published by a reputable academic/nonfiction publisher with a reputation for fact checking, and should the work be treated as reputable scholarly analysis by other experts in the field, in that case we could include Sanghi's theories. We have absolutely no way of knowing how much of what is in the fictional work is directly based on Sanghi's research, and how much was embellished, invented, or otherwise altered to meet the needs of the fictional story. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

btw, Bhagwan S. Gidwani's historical fiction work is freely quoted in scholarly articles on Tipu Sultan including wikipedia. Historical fiction has scholarly uses outside the realm of entertainment. When the theory becomes the central plot of a popular work , its no longer fringe . Its notabity is considered established beyond doubt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On Tipu Sultan, it's used exactly like we do here: we mention it in the article. Briefly. So we're consistent. That article is, of course, not referring to the work as somehow giving reliable information. And your comments about fringe and notability...now you're just being silly. Historical fiction is entertainment. No scholar will cite a work of historical fiction to provide info about historical events. A literary scholar might analyze the literary quality of the work, or a sociologist might exam how various works of fiction treat historical events...but a historian isn't going to cite it to say "such and such happened like this". Qwyrxian (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

please do not resort to personal attacks. Here is JSTOR link proving you wrong:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/23001501?uid=3739448&uid=2460338415&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3737720&uid=4&uid=83&uid=63&sid=21101656193033 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean for that to be a personal attack; I meant to say that the idea of a historian citing historical fiction for historical research is simply ridiculous, because it isn't done. Ever. And if it were, it's pretty much prima facie evidence that the person doing the citing is not a reputable historian. And the citation you've given helps prove my point: that's a book review. In a journal about culture. And only some of the authors are academics. That's not a historian saying "We know X,Y, and Z (cite Gidwani)." Qwyrxian (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you have now edited that offensive comment. Coming to your point, even though that JSTOR article is a book review, it says that Gidwani's work tells a lot about Tipu Sultan. So the author believes that it is not devoid of factual content and that it is worth a look by scholars. This "reputable historian" argument has been used too often by motivated editors on this article as a cat's paw to suppress or misrepresent academic grade sources like Gahlot, Tod, Trevaskis etc which are accepted by reputable publications like Encylopedia Britannica but are somehow not now kosher for Wikipedia, a source whose reputation for accuracy and editorial control is actually much inferior to that of Britannica. What now even JSTOR is not "reputable source" ? Here is another history academic journal which cites Gidwani on Tipu Sultan:

Warfare and state finance in Wodeyar Mysore, 1724-25: A missionary perspective Indian Economic & Social History Review June 1989 26: 203-233

Arrian's work on Alexander is a piece of hagiography or historical fiction as well, written to emulate the heroic odes of Pindar. Yet every single historical theory on Alexander is based on this work which actually belongs to a realm outside history. Please do not assume that lay people outside the group of self-appointed Wikipedia "historians" are all ignoramuses and are incapable of detecting arbitrary application of wikipedia policies. Thank you. --99.232.204.149 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't edit the comment: it says exactly the same thing it did originally. Don't imply I originally said something offensive when I didn't. As for the underlying dispute, you take the matter to WP:RSN. I'm not entertaining this idea any more. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Before you take this to WP:RSN, might I suggest that you read James Tod? I'll declare my interest as the major contributor to that article but if after reading it you still hold the opinion that he (Tod) is an "academic grade" source then, well, good luck with that.--2.219.218.79 (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Tod, as an original compiler of Rajput primary texts, traditions and genealogies, continues to be a citable source in university journals. Some of his theories have were revised later but that does not disqualify him as unreservedly as you would like others to believe. Despite Tod's flaws , no history of Rajputs, as the term is understood today, is possible without a reference to "Annals and antiquities of Rajasthan". --99.232.193.33 (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Tod is not a reliable soruce. This has been established many many times on Wikipedia. No contemporary historian would cite Tod's findings as reliable analyses of history. If you can produce some, perhaps we could reconsider, but so far none of the many dozens of people who support the use of Tod has ever produced one. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:20, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

The Origin of Sainis Sainis Descend from Tomara-Yaduvanshi Rajputs of Mathura and Delhi " The influence of Saur Sen people can be judged from the fact that the dialect of the entire north India at one time was known as 'Saursaini'... The above group of Yadavas came back from Sindh to Brij area and occupied Bayana in Bharatpur district. After some struggle the 'Balai' inhabitants were forced by Shodeo and Saini rulers to move out of Brij land and thus they occupied large areas." -Encyclopaedia Indica: India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Volume 100, pp 119 - 120, SS Sashi, Anmol Publications, 1996 Sainis of Punjab and contiguous region trace their origin to the famous Surasena lineage of the Yaduvanshi Rajputs of Mathura who came to Punjab in defence of the Hindus during the era of Ghaznavide invasions ( Trevaskis, 1928; Baden-Powell, 1896 ) . Some scholars have linked their ancestry with the Rajput warriors who fought along with Prithvi Raj Chauhan in response to Ghorid invasions . The descendants of these soldiers , according to this view, continued to maintain their Rajput character in Punjab despite adoption of a parallel agricultural identity to avoid forced conversion and ritual pollution which was specifically targeted at the refractory Rajput tribes during the Muslim rule of North India (Gahlot et al, 1989). The native accounts of Sainis of Punjab and around, however, always link them back to the rulers of the historical Shoorsaini kingdom (Dak, 1994) which was ruled by Tomara-Yaduvanshi lineage of Rajput kings on the eve of earliest Turk invasions of North Western India. These Rajput rulers, who claimed descent from Lord Krishna's grandfather Maharaja Shoorsen, were also called "Shoorsainis" (Cunningham, 1885), or sometimes, as just "Sainis" (Sashi, 1996). Sainis of Punjab region accordingly regard themselves as Yadavas and direct descendants of Krishna, Balarama and other allied Shoorsaini chiefs mentioned as "Surasenas" in the Puranas.

H.A. Trevaskis : Adventurers

Please note that the following reference also affirms Sainis as Rajputs. The sentence referring to them as "adventurers" is affirmatory . The author is confirming the accuracy of the claim given in next sentence with his own opinion. The preceding and succeeding sentences clearly mentions "Rajput" word. The author is positive that the claim is true.

"The Muhammadan invasions drove a wedge through the Rajput principalities of the eastern Punjab. Some of the Rajput clans fled to the deserts of Rajputana in the south, others overcame the petty chiefs of Himalayan districts and established themselves there. A few adventurers came to terms with the invaders and obtained from them grants of land. The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan who came from their original home near Muttra [sic] on Jumna, south of Delhi, in defence of the Hindus against the first Muhammadan invasions"

Hugh Kennedy Trevaskis, Rajput clan movements- The land of the five rivers..., pp 99-100

Note: The Rajput clan named above is Saini or Shoorsaini (Shoorsen is the ancient name of a Yadava kingdom with capital in Mathura. This also explains the origin of the word 'Saini' from a Yadava tribe.

--108.17.0.34 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Trevaskis is an old source and things have moved on since his time. Despite its many faults, the article reflects this. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Gahlot and Banshidhar (1989) say the same thing. But you would find a way to disqualify them on some flimsy pretext again. You are very good at gaming the rules. --74.198.9.141 (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

You would lose your audience if you make it an issue of caste honor , although Wikipedia has rules against libel and weasel editing . Focus on discussing his editorial practices which do provide some basis for making a case of arbitrariness and lack of neutrality . --99.233.29.22 (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

"The Sainis trace their origin to a Rajput clan" means this author is citing a claim by the Saini community itself. A quick search through Google books yields dozens of results with authors, census results and other reports enumerating the Sainis as a separate, distinct community. Bulk (actually all) of the material I came across does not treat them the same as Rajputs.

It is actually straightforward if you approach the whole situation with this simple question: does any other well-known Rajput community intermarry with the Sainis? There are Rajputs in north of the Punjab, chiefly in the hills, there are Rajputs in the south in Rajasthan, and then there are more communities towards west of the Punjab, in U.P. and as far as Bihar. As far as I can tell, none of these Rajput communities intermarry with the Sainis of the Punjabi area, while they do intermarry among each other. That tells me that Sainis are not ascribed the Rajput status by other Rajputs. --Ucb amateur (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There appears to be  not only an attempt at flawed original research but also wilful disinformation in the comment above. Rajputs of no part of the country uniformly intetmarry.  Rajputs are both hypergamous and endogamous. In Punjab Mahton Rajputs do not intermarry with those on hills. In Rajasthan, Mewar Rajputs do not intermarry with those of Shekhavati. Jadauns of UP do not intermarry with those of Rajasthan. Rajput is not a monolithic group as is being projected in the comment above. There are tonnes of examples where the Rajputs of even the same region do not intermarry. The argument above is both logically and factually flawed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.204.149 (talk) 11:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

hindu rajputs do not intermarry with sikh rajputs. what do you have to say about that — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 06:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Rajput is the term or caste introduced much later in the Indian caste system. Everyone knows about that and their origin created by Brahmins from Agni, chandra and what not because in medieval India they were the rulers and it was the hour of need for Brahmins to bring them into varna system for protection and other reason where as Saini or Shoor sainis are ancient tribe and are Yaduvanshi kshatryas. So remove the part that sainis claim to be Rajputs. Sainis are Yaduvanshis. When Yadu vansh started there was no such caste as Rajput. Read the puranas and other history sources. So there is no such thing as sainis claiming to be Rajputs. Sainis are Yaduvanshis and there is no such thing that sainis claim to be Yaduvanshi, it is a fact that sainis are Yaduvanshis. Sainis were warriors. Also in sikhism, sainis played a very important role in the areas of Anandpur sahib and Chamkaur sahib, fought for Guru Gobind Singh ji. In holy text, Guru Garanth sahib ji, Saini caste is mentioned as the true friends or sajjan or mitar. So Sitush stop creating your own stories. Whosoever has problem with sainis as Rajputs, please do me a favor and remove the "claim to be Rajput" part becuase saini is an ancient caste and are Yaduvanshi kshatrya long before Rajputs were taken into Kshatriya fold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

They are not my own stories. The sooner the multitude of (mostly US/Canada-based IPs) contributing to this talk page come to understand our requirements regarding verifiability and reliable sources, the better. This issue has been rumbling on since at least the time of the now-blocked socks, Garry Singh Girn and SalariaRajput. It has been to WP:DRN etc also and is becoming highly repetitive simply because of a basic failure to accept policy for what it is. As much as I do not care for requesting semi-protection of article talk pages, if this continues then I'll either have to do that or simply ignore everything that these IPs post here. Either way, the "claim" will stay. - Sitush (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean claim will stay You donot even accept some of the sources saying that it is old or what not. So if sources are old it does not mean that those are not authentic If so, then people should stop reading shakespear, Albert Einstein's work or even the holy books of all the religions. So donot hide the fact. Moreover you did not address the issue of messing up the part of article "Mali identifying themselves as Sainis". I had given you the date when you changed it and I would like to know based upon what source that says that "Some people in that area identified themselves as Saini apparently due to their intermarriage with Malis". So stop playing your dirty game. So explain it to me why did you change that part, may be to create more confusion. So matter of the fact is sainis are yduvanshis Shoorsaini lineage and have no relation with Malis who had adopted the name later on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.165.181 (talk) 05:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sitush, please do not be discouraged in face of all this harassment. You are doing a great job! Editors such as yourself bring some order to the otherwise chaotic world of Wikipedia. --Ucb amateur (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.61 (talk) 03:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.132.9.64 (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It is ridiculous that an editor above has given the argument that "Trevaskis is an old source and things have moved on since his time". Which crackpot theory of knowledge supports this kind of scholarship? Is this some kinde of a new "Wikipedia Episteme"? So you won't cite Irfan Habib and Romila Thapar after 70 years from now? I am surprised this editor has been able to get away with this (probably because of overly friendly admins). Trevaskis is regarded as significant economic historian for the state of Punjab. His work contiunes to be cited with respect in academic journals. Please see below how many scholarly articles cite him:

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=10177277472132082914&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

The quote mentioned above comes in middle of a passage devoted to Rajputs. Only to somebody extremely prejudiced would it appear that Trevaskis is referring to Sainis to have descended from any group other than Rajputs. What he is saying is that due to Muslim invasions, a lot of Rajputs either fled to deserts and mountains or they took up different professions and Sainis being one such Rajput group. He does not merely state that as a "claim" but he actually holds this claim to be accurate. No other reading of this reference is possible. --99.232.204.149 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I restored the reference. It is a well cited work. The reference should not have been deleted as it is a quality source or at least as good as majority of the references which wikipipedia permits and employs--24.229.143.18 (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And I've removed it. Aside from my concerns regarding socking (why none of you seem prepared to reigster an account is beyond me), the discussion above demonstrates uncertainty and there was also discussion at WP:DRN etc. You say that Trevaskis is "well-cited". Is he well-cited for this point? If so then please provide some evidence of that. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Why can't I edit the page?

Don't see the edit button... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sainiboyy (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The article has been protected from edits by non-registered users for the following reasons given by the admin:

15:52, 1 abr 2012 User:EdJohnston ha protegit «Saini»‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (expires 15:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)) (Edit warring / Content dispute: Constant article changes by IPs who don't wait for consensus on Talk. This is an Indian social group article under WP:GS}}

MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, you're a registered user; I believe it's because your account is too new to allow you to edit protected pages, as this one is until 1 July. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed by Wikipedia as they don't understand what they write for one pynjab community people who have no relation with Mali community. Do you answer about this. Var160290un (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

he is right i can prove references too Inderjatt13 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

mali caste has no link with saini caste..the reference for this is All the link says is that Sainis came out of Rajputs and remained Rajputs. Rajputs that became Malis are now separate community and they have their own article. This link clearly established Rajput background and character of Sainis . And further state that Rajput Malis And Mali caste have their own respective articles . All Mali related content should be directed there. sukhvir singh gehlot his book tribes and castes of rajasthan Inderjatt13 (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Saini vs Mali Saini

Some how non Saini people (mali saini) are calming to be a Saini, which is perfectly fine with all Saini people. But once Malis get into Saini community, who is very hardworking community and never ask for any reservation from Indian government, then you (mali saini) realize you have made mistake. Because now you are not eligible government funding and also you are not able to gain your mali (sc/st) status back by your self and you have to work very hard to survive. And then mali saini people took whole Saini community under sc/st quota. We being Saini, we don't want any government funding to feed our kids or for our self or for jobs. We are fully capable of acquiring all recourses by our self. Also this page put under vandalism protected by these mali saini. We are who created this page now are not able to edit 'for now'. We will get this page back to its real value.

Manjit Singh Saini www.sainiinfo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjit S. Saini (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

April 05,2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manjit S. Saini (talk • contribs) 22:56, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

See my response to your request in the section below. Your comments in this section simply confirm that you are here to pursue a caste-based agenda and not to contribute in a neutral manner. There is no way that you can sustain this and if you try then you will almost certainly end up being blocked. - Sitush (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are two references from neutral sources. One is from 19th century about Sainis in Punjab. The second one is 20th century reference from census record of 1961 which says that Malis started using "Saini" surname in the 1941 census. This strongly supports the view that Sainis and Malis are different groups. Malis appear to be like many other Indian castes which manipulated their identity in this era for many reasons. Editors need to be mindful of this fact and should be generally conservative in posting information which may be perceived as libelous especially when that information is based on contradictory sources.

"The most industrious are the Rain, Mali, Saini, Lubana, and Jat. The Rain are diligent , persevering men, and on good land will often obtain three or four successive crops of vegetables, which they produce largely in addition to the grain crops.

Reference #1

"The Malis are chiefly gardners.

The Saini occupy sub-mountain tracts and grow sugarcane largely. Their village lands are always in a high state of tillage."

-The encyclopædia of India and of eastern and southern Asia , Volume 3, pp 118, By Edward Balfour, 1885

Reference # 2

"At the time of 1941 Census most of them got registered themselves as Saini (Sainik Kshatriya) Malis." 

-Census of India, 1961, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 7, Office of the Registrar General, India.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018

Hello Dear, I m requesting to remove word 'Mali" from this page (saini). Because 'Mali' word dose not represent Saini community. Non Saini people (mali) trying to damage Saini image so they edit this page as it is mali Saini's page. Please remove word 'mali'. Please visit www.sainionline.com or www.sainiinfo.com for Saini history with reference.

Manjit Singh Saini Burlington Canada Manjit S. Saini (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, this issue has been raised many times in the past by people from the Saini community. The fact remains that there is potential for confusion because of how sources have treated the issue and thus we need to ensure that the reader is not misguided. You may not like to see Mali mentioned but that is not a reason to remove it. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sir Sitush You are a very smart and intelligent person. We all appreciate teh work you have been doing on the Wikipedia. The citation given to put mali along saini, does not stand ground. It is about the castes of Rajasthan. It talks about Malis but then attempts to link them with Sainis of Punjab. It clearly establishes Rajput background of sainis but then attempts to establish Rajasthan Malis with Punjab Sainis but it does not stand the validity of even wikipedia rules. It also ignores the fact that prior to 1930 census Sainis were not found outside of present day Punjab and Haryana. All the links says that Sainis came out of Rajputs and remained RajputsRajputs that become Mali in Rajasthan is a seperate community. Kindly do the justice to the article Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.135.0.58 (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Requesting edit

remove word ‘Mali’ from this page Manjit S. Saini (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done for the reasons already explained above - please stop your disruptive editing - Arjayay (talk) 16:35, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Request pending Hi Mr. Arjayay, Please explain how my request is disruptive ? I felt discriminated by this language. I m just trying to save my identity, not sure why you have used "disruptive" word. I have edited this page in past in good faith. If you are refusing to edit this page (removing word Mali), Please shear your reason for not doing so. Please visit www.sainiinfo.com or www.sainionline.com for Saini history and find all historical references that proves Malis are not part of Saini community. I m not using any offensive language or material here. I believe I should have given fair opportunity to defend and save my identify. Best Regards Manjit S. Saini, Burlington, Canada April 12, 2018

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Please change- This article is about the Saini (Mali) community .. TO - This article is about the Saini community and also change-Sainis also claim themselves to be Mali Rajputs TO- Sainis also claim themselves to be Rajputs. Sainis also claim themselves to be Mali Rajputs is objectionable because saini and mali are two different castes which were merged later only on papers. and putting mali in brackets after saini is spreading wrong idea.. Saini and Mali dont even marry within ,they differ in culture and hierarchy. please take Mali away from the article. I belong to saini community and have researched about it in books and have gathered information from elders ..Saini and Mali are different Monikanik07 (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Asked and answered above. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Monikanik07 (talk) 10:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC) all the refrences which are give totally shows that this mali community is related to only rajyasthan and one will not find mali saini in Himachal Pradesh or punjab.. Why to put everyone under an umberella. Mali do contain saperate wiki page so why not mention it there ? what good will come by writing something about a caste which is neither accetable nor true.. This Mali Rajput is a recent addition in wiki and quite shocking. Saini are Rajputs not Mali Rajputs so why to spread the idea. without proper information you are questioning the identity here. please remove mali

Edit request on 29 June 2012

Please include the varna of saini and also if sainis are under suryavanshi or chandravanshi rajput

59.164.4.229 (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. The best way to do that is to propose the exact wording you want added, removed or changed. You should also provide a reliable source to support any added material. Rivertorch (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Saini is kshtriya clan..he has no historical link with other castes such as mali, mouriya, kushwaha etc.. of rajasthan, u.p. please remove that mali word after saini from your page... Gsaini091 (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

In Haryana The second backward class commission was formed under chairmanship Ramji lal Ex M.P on the recommendation of commission vide notification no 1170-SW(1)-95 dated 7 june 1995 release and saini converted from general caste to BC class five castes added in to second Backward class (BC-B)Here are the list of castes Yadav,Saini,meo,loddh, gujjar So please add this information into Wikipedia source of knowledge government records.

Gaurav saini1987 (talk) 18:16, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Remove mali word from brackets with saini :Action Required

Please remove the bracket portion with saini, the wrong word(info) given with the name saini, Action Required: please remove the mali from brackets with saini. As saini and mali are both different community. If you dont make changes that leads to legal action on your writing. As per humble request please make differece saini and mali are both different community. 7shubhamsaini (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

@7shubhamsaini:, Are you suggesting you will initiate legal action?, but against whom? what do you mean by "legal action on your writing"? ... who is "your" or "you" here you are addressing to?, please clarify... --Adamstraw99 (talk) 10:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Saini and Mali community both are different but why you mention Mali in brackets with saini community of punjab. Do some research you will get the difference between both communities also. If you compare physical structure of punjab saini community with other states like Rajasthan, haryana UP etc. Its completely different but they all have similar body structure except saini of punjab and J&K. Wiki is source of correct information and people approch here to get correct information. If your page will misguide others about actual existance of the facts how we'll trust on this information. Var160290un (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

@Var160290un:, who you are addressing here?.. Wikipedia articles are worked on collaboratively by multiple volunteers -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Remove Mali word from this page summary. As Saini and Malis are different communities.

Please remove Mali word from below given sentence as both are different communities.

"This article is about the Saini (Mali) community of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Chandigarh and Delhi." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.86.137 (talk) 10:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

who said to you that sainis are malis..mali is diffrent cast..

Adityasingh991 (talk) 16:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2019

Please remove Mali word from this content its my humble request. 49.203.230.112 (talk) 09:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: where / what word, and why? DannyS712 (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Contradictory information on the page

Please check the source of " Sainis also claim themselves to be Mali Rajputs". It clearly mentions Rajasthan state. And on the top of the page, it is written "For the Mali community who were not recorded as Saini prior to 1937, see Mali caste and Rajput Mali." This is a contradictory statement. If you have another page for Mali then the sentence "Sainis also claim themselves to be Mali Rajputs" should not be on this page at all.

Saini from Punjab, J&K, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh are not mali. Mali word needs to be removed from "This article is about the Saini (Mali) community of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Chandigarh and Delhi."

Why have you guys manipulated this page so much in the last couple of years? Saini's are not mali in Punjab, J&K and Himachal Pradesh. It is about our culture which we deeply respect and care for. It is a humble request- Please do not manipulate our history.

The community from Rajasthan & UP are the ones who are mali. Our culture is very different from mali's of Rajasthan & Uttar Pradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhh (talk • contribs) 16:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Saini King of mathura .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Remove Mali word in Bracket with Saini from summary

Remove Mali word in Bracket with Saini from summary as this article is about Saini Community of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal and J&K which are different than Mali Community. It is only creating confussion. PrinceSingh1987 (talk) 12:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

The entire point of the disambiguation link at the head of the page is to avoid confusion. By the way, if you have been summonsed here by some post on a web forum or if you are or know Manmohansinh saini, please read WP:MEAT. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

How many time to remove for mali Manmohansinh saini (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Facts that a few people know about sainis

Sainis are originated from MALVA kingdom but when they migrated from malva ,persons of other kingdom gave them title of malvia due to their malva kingdom. Gomti devi (talk) 02:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Some great kings of saini kingdom

The great king who bring the holi river ganga to earth named MAHARAJ BHAGIRATH. PORUS the king of porav dynsty who defeated Alexender of macadonia to IndiaGomti devi (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Maurya vanshiya saini

The great emperor of kingdom magadha chakravati samrat Chandragupta Maurya. His son Maharaj Bindusaar.And his grandson last big king of Maurya vansh samrat ASHOKA who give us ashok stambha from which national emblem has been taken Gomti devi (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019

<-- please delete mali in bracketin summary This article is about the Saini community of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Chandigarh and Delhi. For the Mali community who were not recorded as Saini prior to 1937, see Mali caste and Rajput Mali. For the Bhagrathi or Gola community of Western Uttar Pradesh, see Bhagirathi Mali.mali is different please remove mali in bracket with saini punjabi haryana etc saini different than mali caste of rajsthan as they have different surnames never intermarry please someone from low caste disgrace saini community please try to understand our feelings remove mali from bracket with saini --Punjabier (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Not done: Please see WP:DAB. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Saini Caste About Information

Saini Is Rajput. They're not covered in Mali Rajput So why in this page are separate legally show for saini is mali Rajput But Both are different communities http://www.sainionline.com/neo-saini-groups/post-1930-appropriation-of-saini-identity-by-mali-caste — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabier (talk • contribs) 05:44, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

<<--Mali caste, in southern districts of Haryana and beyond in the states of UP, MP, and Rajasthan, also started using the surname "Saini" in 20th century since 1930-40 .

However, this is not the same community as Tomar-Yaduvanshi descent Sainis of Punjab who according to renowned and peer-reviewed ethno-historians like SS Gahlot et al have maintained their Rajput character .This is testified by the fact that census of 1881 does not acknowledge of the existence of Saini community outside Punjab and, despite the insinuations of colonial writers like Ibbetson, records Sainis and Malis as separate communities. Sainis by Fiat: Enter the "Sainik Kshatriyas"

The Marwar State Census Report of 1891 A.D. also did not contain reference to any community called 'Saini' in Rajputana and recorded only two groups as Malis, namely, Mahoor Malis and Rajput Malis, among which the latter are also included in Rajput sub-category. Rajput Malis changed their identity to Saini in 1930 but in the later censuses other non-Rajput Malis such as Mahur or Maur , who ostensibly had no lineal link with Rajputs, also adopted 'Saini' as their last name. The way they sought to piggyback their way into the Saini identity was by seeking to project it as an abbreviated form of "Sainik" or "soldier" rather than linking it with properly historically grounded term "Shoorsaini" , a link which would have been impossible to prove. In this reference a review of the following order issued by Jodhpur state in 1937 is quite instructive:-->> Punjabier (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

please remove mali in bracket with saini caste as punjabi saini is farward caste i will give you same reference as saini and mali caste are different castes testified

Mali caste, in southern districts of Haryana and beyond in the states of UP, MP, and Rajasthan, also started using the surname "Saini" in 20th century since 1930-40 .

However, this is not the same community as Tomar-Yaduvanshi descent Sainis of Punjab who according to renowned and peer-reviewed ethno-historians like SS Gahlot et al have maintained their Rajput character .This is testified by the fact that census of 1881 does not acknowledge of the existence of Saini community outside Punjab and, despite the insinuations of colonial writers like Ibbetson, records Sainis and Malis as separate communities. Sainis by Fiat: Enter the "Sainik Kshatriyas"

The Marwar State Census Report of 1891 A.D. also did not contain reference to any community called 'Saini' in Rajputana and recorded only two groups as Malis, namely, Mahoor Malis and Rajput Malis, among which the latter are also included in Rajput sub-category. Rajput Malis changed their identity to Saini in 1930 but in the later censuses other non-Rajput Malis such as Mahur or Maur , who ostensibly had no lineal link with Rajputs, also adopted 'Saini' as their last name. The way they sought to piggyback their way into the Saini identity was by seeking to project it as an abbreviated form of "Sainik" or "soldier" rather than linking it with properly historically grounded term "Shoorsaini" , a link which would have been impossible to prove. In this reference a review of the following order issued by Jodhpur state in 1937 is quite instructive please remove mali word with saini in bracket in saini caste summary someone from low caste try to disgrace our community Punjabier (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019

saini and mali are different castes why you are using mali with saini caste in bracket

Mali caste, in southern districts of Haryana and beyond in the states of UP, MP, and Rajasthan, also started using the surname "Saini" in 20th century since 1930-40 .

However, this is not the same community as Tomar-Yaduvanshi descent Sainis of Punjab who according to renowned and peer-reviewed ethno-historians like SS Gahlot et al have maintained their Rajput character .This is testified by the fact that census of 1881 does not acknowledge of the existence of Saini community outside Punjab and, despite the insinuations of colonial writers like Ibbetson, records Sainis and Malis as separate communities. Sainis by Fiat: Enter the "Sainik Kshatriyas"

The Marwar State Census Report of 1891 A.D. also did not contain reference to any community called 'Saini' in Rajputana and recorded only two groups as Malis, namely, Mahoor Malis and Rajput Malis, among which the latter are also included in Rajput sub-category. Rajput Malis changed their identity to Saini in 1930 but in the later censuses other non-Rajput Malis such as Mahur or Maur , who ostensibly had no lineal link with Rajputs, also adopted 'Saini' as their last name. The way they sought to piggyback their way into the Saini identity was by seeking to project it as an abbreviated form of "Sainik" or "soldier" rather than linking it with properly historically grounded term "Shoorsaini" , a link which would have been impossible to prove. In this reference a review of the following order issued by Jodhpur state in 1937 is quite instructive: Punjabier (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Saini is forward caste while mali is schedule castes sc caste

<Saini and mali are different castes having different surnames Mali caste, in southern districts of Haryana and beyond in the states of UP, MP, and Rajasthan, also started using the surname "Saini" in 20th century since 1930-40 .

However, this is not the same community as Tomar-Yaduvanshi descent Sainis of Punjab who according to renowned and peer-reviewed ethno-historians like SS Gahlot et al have maintained their Rajput character .This is testified by the fact that census of 1881 does not acknowledge of the existence of Saini community outside Punjab and, despite the insinuations of colonial writers like Ibbetson, records Sainis and Malis as separate communities. Sainis by Fiat: Enter the "Sainik Kshatriyas"> Punjabier (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The Marwar State Census Report of 1891 A.D. also did not contain reference to any community called 'Saini' in Rajputana and recorded only two groups as Malis, namely, Mahoor Malis and Rajput Malis, among which the latter are also included in Rajput sub-category. Rajput Malis changed their identity to Saini in 1930 but in the later censuses other non-Rajput Malis such as Mahur or Maur , who ostensibly had no lineal link with Rajputs, also adopted 'Saini' as their last name. The way they sought to piggyback their way into the Saini identity was by seeking to project it as an abbreviated form of "Sainik" or "soldier" rather than linking it with properly historically grounded term "Shoorsaini" , a link which would have been impossible to prove. In this reference a review of the following order issued by Jodhpur state in 1937 is quite instructive:

I've removed the hatnote as there were no incoming redirects containing "Mali", so we don't need to point to other Mali articles in the hatnote. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

ÞjarkurI've reverted you. This is a long-standing issue related to one community not liking the fact that another community was officially recognised by the name Saini. It is dealt with in the related articles and it thus relevant. If you dig through the history, you'll see a lot of attempts to sanitise the information because there are issues relating to caste glorification. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

sitush you are from mali caste you know mali started using saini in 1937in rajasthan state how you can said whole punjabi community is mali why you disgrace our community

I am not from any caste, nor even from India. You are misreading what the article says and the reason for the note at the top of it. - Sitush (talk) 12:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

very very thanks Þjarkur sir i never forget what you have done for us — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabier (talk • contribs) 01:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted Þjarkur - see previous section. - Sitush (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit request 23 May 2018

Please Remove Mali word from in bracket with Saini as both are different communities .

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.86.137 (talk) 10:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC) 

Mali caste, in southern districts of Haryana and beyond in the states of UP, MP, and Rajasthan, also started using the surname "Saini" in 20th century since 1930-40 .

However, this is not the same community as Tomar-Yaduvanshi descent Sainis of Punjab who according to renowned and peer-reviewed ethno-historians like SS Gahlot et al have maintained their Rajput character .This is testified by the fact that census of 1881 does not acknowledge of the existence of Saini community outside Punjab and, despite the insinuations of colonial writers like Ibbetson, records Sainis and Malis as separate communities. Sainis by Fiat: Enter the "Sainik Kshatriyas"

The Marwar State Census Report of 1891 A.D. also did not contain reference to any community called 'Saini' in Rajputana and recorded only two groups as Malis, namely, Mahoor Malis and Rajput Malis, among which the latter are also included in Rajput sub-category. Rajput Malis changed their identity to Saini in 1930 but in the later censuses other non-Rajput Malis such as Mahur or Maur , who ostensibly had no lineal link with Rajputs, also adopted 'Saini' as their last name. The way they sought to piggyback their way into the Saini identity was by seeking to project it as an abbreviated form of "Sainik" or "soldier" rather than linking it with properly historically grounded term "Shoorsaini" , a link which would have been impossible to prove. In this reference a review of the following order issued by Jodhpur state in 1937 is quite instructive:Punjabier (talk) 15:09, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

http://www.sainionline.com/neo-saini-groups/post-1930-appropriation-of-saini-identity-by-mali-caste

See above link show research work saini mali castes difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Punjabier (talk • contribs) 13:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Mr david i got your message

Who is punjabier saini of punjab have almost 40lakh population you said have copied content of punjabier mr david you are publish wrong information in whole world very soon i will contact Wikipedia foundation officals in America and talk about some of yours editors like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.240.20 (talk) 02:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2019

why you add mali in bracket with saini caste read below article by clicking on link

http://www.sainionline.com/neo-saini-groups/post-1930-appropriation-of-saini-identity-by-mali-caste 42.109.240.8 (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make; please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:08, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2019

Please remove mali word in bracket with saini caste in hatnote summary of saini caste as in punjab state both are different castes declared by pubjab land alienation act please check your external references www.sainionline.com they will mention totally different community 42.109.240.12 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Philroc (c) 01:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

Please remove mali word in hatnote summary of saini caste as there is no need of it, before 1937 saini community exists how you can decide or declare whole saini to be mali and only rajput mali in rajasthan have started using saini surname after 1937 please remove mali in bracket with saini in hatnote summary. 42.109.224.32 (talk) 03:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The request (and, I assume, all previous requests posted from the same IP range) was posted by an IPsock of blocked user User:Punjabier. --bonadea contributions talk 11:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

Saini and Mali is different caste. Please remove Mali from bracket. If you continue this way showing wrong information, very soon wikipedia will loose popularity and no body will trust on wikipedia. Please remove Mali word. 103.39.158.210 (talk) 14:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Mali is different caste than saini why you mention mali in bracket

See the link below for your kind intentions http://www.sainionline.com/neo-saini-groups/post-1930-appropriation-of-saini-identity-by-mali-caste

Mali and saini are different caste, please do not mixed up both. Gorayan (talk) 02:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Mali and Saini are different caste.

Mali and saini are different caste, please do not mixed up both. Some Malis are only use surname as saini. They also said that they are Mali not saini Gorayan (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

1. Reference 9 does not support the claim made in the article- the reference suggests Sainis and Rajput Mali have same shared origin but exist in different geographic regions, not that Sainis claim to be this group. This group has their own page signposted at the top of the page, I suggest the line "Sainis also claim themselves to be Mali Rajputs.[9]" is removed.

2. The header (and rest of article) rightfully states this page is about "This article is about the Saini (Mali) community of Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Chandigarh and Delhi." yet goes on to refer to "Saini community is given representation in government jobs and education institutes under Other Backward Class (OBC)[2] category in states of Uttar Pradesh[3], Punjab[4], Haryana[5], Rajasthan[6][7] and Madhya Pradesh.[8]". Most of these states are not in frame for this article, with relevant groups signposted at top. Instead of moving to relevant pages, the line should just be deleted as state specific affirmative action status can change and is not relevant info in the scheme of things. 20182309L (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done – To editor 20182309L: ref. #9 reads the other way around, and so the sentence has been altered to fit that source. #2 above is a claim that is supported by several reference citations and would require at least a local consensus of editors to change it or remove it. Thank you for bringing the 1st issue to light! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2020

Remove mali community from this particular article as mali community adopted saini surname in 1930s which is also written in wikipedia pages of mali, mali rajput, bhagirathi mali and also many other sources can prove this. Singhjatin (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Singhjatin:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 03:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2020

Saini community is not obc in punjab after 2016 as you can see in this article on 12/09/2016 Saini community is removed from obc and are general now in punjab. Please edit it to avoid further confusion. Singhjatin (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I hate to sound sceptical, but the "original document" this comes from (link) lists Saini on the fourth page which has a completely different typeset and style. PunjabXP says "All publications are originally published in various Govt. sites" but they're hosting the original document themselves... Are there more sources that might be able to corroborate this content? Primefac (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Specifically, please provide a reliable source that clearly originates from the Punjab state government. This document is doubtfully accurate for the reasons Primefac gives. The same pdf is apparently being circulated on Punjab-related websites but entirely on unreliable sites such as Facebook, Wordpress blogs, job boards, etc. Searching for the supposed government notification also only finds the same self-published sources. This document appears to have been fabricated and can't be considered reliable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2020

kindly change the article name mali in bracket in summary as both saini and mali are different caste mali started using saini with different meanings please donot spread wrong information about warriors sainis Er. Hummy (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Aasim 05:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

http://www.sainionline.com/neo-saini-groups/post-1930-appropriation-of-saini-identity-by-mali-caste

 Not done: That source still is not reliable. Aasim 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

Populated States : add name of Rajasthan in populated staes 2401:4900:1B97:3A50:3DFB:F3FB:E65D:919 (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2020

2409:4053:219D:8A20:0:0:1029:A8A1 (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)